arned of their criminal liability for perjury or refusal to testify."
20. The applicant appealed against his conviction, alleging, in particular, that the police officers had subjected him to ill-treatment.
21. On 22 February 2000 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. The court did not make a specific ruling on the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment.
E. Authorities' further responses
to the applicant's complaints
22. On 17 August 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint about his conviction and ill-treatment with the Kirov Regional Prosecutor. On an unspecified date he forwarded a similar complaint to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation.
23. On 30 August 2000 the First Deputy Regional Prosecutor responded that the applicant's conviction was in compliance with law. As regards the applicant's complaint of the ill-treatment, the prosecutor noted as follows:
"The [applicant's] allegations that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure lack any substantiation. The Kirov Town Prosecutor's Office had earlier conducted an inquiry and refused to open a criminal investigation."
24. On 31 September 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that they did not discern any irregularities in the way the courts had determined the criminal charges against him. Nor had "any unlawful methods of investigation" been employed against the applicant.
II. Relevant domestic law and practice
25. A prosecutor, investigator or judge is under an obligation to accept for review any complaint concerning a criminal offence and to decide whether a criminal investigation is necessary. They may request relevant material or explanations (Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure in force until 1 July 2002, the "old CCrP").
26. Where there are sufficient grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, the prosecutor, the investigator or the judge initiates a criminal investigation (Article 112 of the old CCrP).
27. The complainant may appeal against the refusal to open a criminal investigation to a prosecutor or a court (Article 113 of the old CCrP).
THE LAW
I. The Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion
of effective remedies
28. The Court joined to the merits the Government's objection concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment under Article 3 and 13 of the Convention and about the ensuing investigation (see Toporkov v. Russia (dec.), No. 66688/01, 27 November 2008).
29. In particular, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that he had not challenged the Kirov Town Assistant Prosecutor's refusal to open a criminal case by applying to a superior prosecutor or to a court.
30. The applicant asserted that he had exhausted domestic remedies because he had complained to the Regional Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor, and had raised the complaint during his trial, but all his attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice had been to no avail.
31. As regards an appeal to a superior prosecutor, the Court has already held that it does not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Slyusarev v. Russia (dec.), No. 60333/00, 9 November 2006).
32. The position is different, however, with regard to the possibility of challenging before a court of general jurisdiction a prosecutor's decision not to investigate complaints of ill-treatment. The Court has previously held that in the Russian legal system the power of a court to reverse a decision not to instit
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
